Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010069872025 2025:GAU-AS:12399 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1944/2025 KALPITA ROY CHOUDHURY D/O-LATE KANAILAL ROY CHOUDHURY AND LATE GOURI ROY CHOUDHURY,R/O-JIBANANDA SARANI,NATIONAL HIGHWAY,NEAR RADHARAMAN ASHRAM,AMBICAPUR,P.S-SILCHAR,NEW BHAKATPUR,DIST-CHACHAR,ASSAM,PIN-788005 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REP. BY THE SECRTARY,HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT,ASSAM SECRETARIAT,I-BLOCK,2ND FLOOR,DISPUR,GUWAHATI-6 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT CID HEAD QUARTER ASSAM APRO COLONY ULUBARI GUWAHATI DIST-KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781007 3:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI DIT-KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781029 4:THE DIRECTOR PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCE DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF ASSAM Page No.# 2/8 HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI DIST-KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781006 5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT GUWAHATI DIST-KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S CHAKRABORTY, MS. K A PUJARI,JONA DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, AG (A AND E),SC, FINANCE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORER 03.09.2025 Heard Ms. K.A. Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4; Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned standing counsel for the Accountant General, respondent No. 3; and Mr. A. Chaliha, learned standing counsel for the Finance Department, respondent No. 5. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to grant/release/pay the family pension/pension to her, of her deceased father. 3. Ms. Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner, namely, Sri Kanailal Roy Choudhury, was serving in the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Assam and after his retirement from the said Page No.# 3/8 department as Inspector, he was granted pension, vide P.P.O. No. 43123, under the Head of Account – 2071 Pension & OPB (I) 01 Civil, dated 01.07.1991, by the Office of the Accountant General (AIE), Assam. Thereafter, he suffered demise on 04.05.1995, and after his death, petitioner's mother, namely Smti. Gouri Roy Choudhury, had started receiving pension of her father. 3.1. Further submission of Ms. Pujari is that the petitioner is a divorced unemployed daughter and now she was dependent on her parents, for survival after her divorce. Ms. Pujari also submits that petitioner’s mother suffered demise on 02.04.2024, and after the death of her mother, the pension was discontinued and as such, she along with her minor daughter is facing immense financial hardship and thereafter, she had approached the respondent authorities, but the same failed to evoke any response till date. 3.2. Referring to a decision of this Court, in the case of Hasiba Begum vs. State of Assam & Others, reported in 2022 (1) GLT 353, Ms. Pujari submits that divorced dependent daughter is eligible for family pension. Again, referring to a decision of a Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in the case of Khajani Devi vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 2016 4 SCT 190, Ms. Pujari submits that it is travesty to exclude a divorce daughter from pension. Further, referring to a Notification of the Government of Assam in the Pension and Public Grievance Department, bearing No. PPG(G) 10/2013/49, dated 09.08.2018, Ms. Pujari submits that family pension shall be allowed to continue beyond 21 years of age to an unmarried dependent daughter of a Government servant. And since, the present petitioner, being a divorced and dependant daughter of Late Kanailal Roy Choudhury, she is eligible for pension. Under such circumstances, Ms. Pujari has contended to allow this petition. Page No.# 4/8 4. Per-contra, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, for the State respondents, referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2, submits that there is no record of receipt of any representation for granting family pension to the petitioner after the death of her mother. However, on 25.11.2024, the CID had received a letter from the petitioner, dated 19.11.2024, wherein it is stated that she is a divorcee and unemployed woman. 4.1. Mr. Goswami further submits that as per Notification No. PPG(G).10/2013/49, dated 09.08.2013, under amended Rule 143(2), only unmarried dependent daughters beyond 21 years of age are eligible for family pension. 4.2. Further submission of Mr. Goswami is that the petitioner had not submitted any photocopies of her Divorce Certificate, PPO Book, Next of Kin Certificate, PAN Card, Aadhar Card and photographs along with the representation, which is mandatory for processing the application, to the higher authority and therefore, the same could not be processed. 4.3. It is the further submission of Mr. Goswami that if the petitioner submitted a fresh representation by enclosing aforementioned documents, including her Divorce Certificate, then the authority may consider the same. 5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also gone through the decisions of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Hasiba Begum (Supra) and of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Khajani Devi (Supra). 6. The basic facts, here in this case, are not in dispute. The petitioner is the Page No.# 5/8 daughter of Late Kanailal Roy Choudhury, who served in the CID and after his retirement, he was granted pension, vide P.P.O. No. 43123, dated 01.07.1991, by the Office of the Accountant General (AIE), Assam. Thereafter, he suffered demise on 04.05.1995. After his death, petitioner's mother, namely, Smti. Gouri Roy Choudhury, had started receiving pension. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is a divorced and unemployed daughter and after her divorce, she was dependent on her parents. Further, after demise of her mother, on 02.04.2024, her family pension was discontinued and therefore, being an unemployed and divorced woman, she has been suffering from immense financial hardship. 7. It is to be noted here that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Hasiba Begum (Supra), in paragraph No. 31, has held that since the intention of the Legislature is to support a dependent daughter, who is unmarried and the emphasis is on the dependency of such daughter upon the deceased Government servant, the same benefit may be extended to a divorced dependent daughter. It has been further held that there will not be a major difference between an unmarried or a divorced daughter as the pivotal ground is the ground of dependency and being an unmarried daughter, per-se shall not make such a daughter eligible for the family pension and it would be incumbent upon such unmarried daughter to establish her dependency on the deceased Government servant, juxtaposition a divorced daughter, such obligation would still remain and may be perhaps with some additional conditions connected to receipt of alimony etc. 8. Again, in the case of Khajani Devi (Supra), a Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held as under:- Page No.# 6/8 “It would, thus, be a travesty to exclude a divorced daughter. There would be no rationality to the reason that the unmarried daughter can be included in the list of eligible dependents and a divorced daughter would stand excluded, particularly when she is the sole eligible dependent and thus, qualifies for the benefit, which is concededly made admissible only to one dependent. Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that a beneficial scheme such as the one in hand should not be fettered or constructed by a rigorous interpretation which tends to deprive the claimants of the benefit to result in virtual frustration or negation of the laudable motive of the scheme itself. We also notice that the Ministry of Defence has issued instructions dated 14.12.2012 (on record as Annexure P8) which included a divorced daughter in the category of eligible dependents for grant of liberalized/special family pension beyond 25 years. We may extract the same herein below:- 2. The above matter is considered by the Government and it has been decided in consultation with Department of P&PW that unmarried/widowed/divorced daughter shall also be eligible for grant of liberalized/special family pension beyond 25 years of age subject to fulfillment of other prescribed conditions as hitherto fore." 9. In the instant case, Annexure – 7 (Next of Kin Certificate), enclosed with Page No.# 7/8 the record indicates that Late Kanailal Roy Choudhury left behind the petitioner along with her sister, namely, Kamalika Roy Choudhury, who got married and leading a conjugal life, as per statement made in paragraph No. 6 of the petition. Further, Annexure – 5, indicates that the petitioner here in got married on 01.12.2002, but after 8 years of her marriage, her husband filed a divorced case before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Cachar at Silchar and the learned Family Court had granted divorced to them on 11.01.2013 and that the petitioner had received only Rs. 50,000/- as permanent alimony. 10. It also appears that though the petitioner had filed one representation, dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure – 8 series), the same has not yet been disposed of, even though the respondent No. 2 has acknowledged receipt of the same. 11. Under the given facts and circumstances, and taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the respondent authorities by enclosing all the relevant documents, as mentioned in paragraph No. 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2, including her Divorce Certificate, within a period of 2 (two) weeks from today. 12. On such representation being filed, the respondent authorities, especially the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, shall consider and dispose of the same within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Further, while disposing of such representation, the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 shall consider the proposition laid down in the case of Hasiba Begum (Supra) and Khajani Devi (Supra), in respect of entitlement of family pension by a divorced and dependant daughter. Page No.# 8/8 13. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and shall place the same before the respondent authorities, within two weeks from today. JUDGE Comparing Assistant